Good talk on blocks

[Van Canna]

Many individuals with personality disorders may suffer varying degrees of depression, including thoughts of suicide.

Impulsive violence against the self and against others often go together, and the sense of hopelessness that is part of the depressed state may impel aggressive acting-out if the demoralized individual feels he has nothing to lose and decides to take others to the grave with him.

Indeed, the most common psychological recipe for mass violence consists of a mixture of anger, paranoia, and mood disorder.

Less commonly, organic brain syndromes due to head trauma, strokes, dementia, or epilepsy may be associated with short-lived, impulsively violent outbursts and may be preceded or accompanied by noticeable impairment in memory, concentration, reasoning, planning, or behavioral organization.

Texas Tower sniper Charles Whitman was discovered to have a brain tumor on autopsy, but whether this played any role in his methodical 1966 campus killing spree is undetermined.Finally, alcohol and drug abuse can potentiate violence from almost any other cause.

[Van Canna]

Psychological effects of mass violence

Even among those not directly killed or wounded, acts of mass violence produce a psychological shockwave that impacts a wide variety of witnesses, friends, family, and community members, as we know from studying past episodes.


For example, in 1991, a gunman drove his truck into the front of a crowded cafeteria in Killeen, Texas and began shooting customers indiscriminately, many at point-blank range.

After being wounded by police, the gunman fatally shot himself, killing a total of 24 people.

Over three-quarters of people who witnessed the violence reported symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), including intrusive recall of the event, hyperstartle responses, insomnia, and nightmares.

[Van Canna]

Adverse psychological reactions are not necessarily inevitable, however.

On May 5, 1992, during closing arguments of a divorce proceeding in the local courthouse of the small, upscale, St. Louis suburb of Clayton, Missouri, the estranged husband pulled two revolvers from his briefcase and shot his wife and both parties’ lawyers.

He fired at the judge, missing him, and then strode through the back hallway, firing at several people. By the time police shot and wounded the gunman, his wife lay dead and five others were wounded. The whole episode lasted less than ten minutes.

Although a quarter of the witnesses studied showed posttraumatic symptoms after the courthouse shooting incident, three-quarters of this affected subsample were found to have pre-existing histories of psychiatric disorder and only ten percent of the subjects developed a new syndrome specifically as a result of this incident.

[Van Canna]

Citizen and law enforcement repsonse to mass violence

While such studies may differ as to the scope of the psychological impact of mass violence, everyone agrees that all reasonable measures should be taken to prevent these tragedies and, when they occur, everything possible should be done for the survivors and other affected by the trauma.

Many of the following recommendations for citizens and police agencies come from the lessons learned in dealing with workplace and school violence (see School Violence: The psychology of youthful mass murder and what to do about it).

Law enforcement agencies should collaborate with local businesses, schools, merchants, public facilities, and other organizations to proactively set up policies and procedures for preventing, responding to, and coping with the aftermath of a mass violence incident. The plan should include the following elements.

[Van Canna]

Law enforcement response includes establishing a mechanism for instantly notifying local law enforcement of an emerging threat or act of violence, with redundant backup contingency plans in case the primary notification mechanism fails to function.

Following an incident, civilian authorities should know how to keep the crime scene intact until law enforcement has gone over the area.

Mental health mobilization includes a prearranged plan for company representatives to contact their contracted mental health professionals immediately, arrange for the clinicians to meet first at the top levels of the organization for executive briefings, arranging for critical incident stress debriefings (CISD) for affected employees and stakeholders, and arranging a follow-up schedule for the clinicians to return for further psychological services as needed.

Employee and family interventions include a designated person to notify the victims’ families of the incident and to be ready to offer them immediate support, counseling, and debriefing services. Personnel managers at affected businesses should arrange time off for grieving and traumatized employees as appropriate.

After the initial stages of the incident have passed, the mental health clinician should help organizational managers and community leaders to find ways for survivors to memorialize the victims.

Legal measures include notifying in-house legal counsel or the company’s outside law firm, and they should be asked to respond to the scene, if necessary.

Post-incident investigations involve a collaborative effort between law enforcement and civilian authorities, and include questions about the nature of the perpetrator, his relationship to the organization or community, any warning signs that should have been heeded, and the organization’s and community’s overall security and threat assessment procedures.

Violence will probably never be entirely eliminated from society. But local law enforcement officials can combine forces with civilian community leaders to reduce both the number and the severity of these incidents. Although I can’t recall the name, some philosopher once said that a civilized society depends on its citizens feeling safe.

[Van Canna]

The Distance Dance

Fighting in self defense involves_ distance_ closing_engagement_ keeping your distance_ protecting your space_ fence up_ backing up_ side stepping_ countering etc. _ manners of drilling all this_ goal of the exercises_ and, more insidious...

the subliminal 'programming' of the concepts you practice_ you will generally do as you practice even as you might think you won't...and even as trained as you might be...you will have a tendency to flail while groping for defensive techniques under the adrenaline kick.

You must first ask yourself the questions : what is the nature of the enemy you are about to face_ and what is it that is making you fight at that moment, i.e., what are the reasons you almost suddenly find yourself 'engaged' _

If you don't understand what I just wrote in detail, then your 'dance for space' will turn into a 'death dance' _

Ask yourself why you are fighting to begin with_

[Van Canna]

gary6dan »

Occasionally at work and in public places, strangers invade your space and make physical contact through bumping into you. Being a polite and courteous person, you generally say "excuse me", even when it is not your fault.

While you always try to be aware, at times as in a public work/shopping enviroment, close proximity is common. The brushing of another person may be common at times and accepted as accidental and unintentional.

However, at times, the brushing of another (or contact) is questioned as its being deliberate, intentional or just arrogance. Especially when ackowledgment is not expresses.


At these times, you bite your tongue knowing that speeking out may invite potential conflict. So, we let it go. However, at some point, you lash out at someone automatically with, Hey, watch out ! or, Watch were your going ? Or "Excuse me !" (sarcastically)

He then turns and uses verbal intimidation tactics that work most of the time for him. As being somewhat big in size and appearing rough or scruffy, many generally will stand down apologetically, even when it was not their fault.

However you/me have done the "avoidance" dance one to many times. In holding your ground by not retreating or backing down from your responce, he takes notion of closing distance while verbal engagement that, while not stating words of physical threat, presents "body language" of potential threat.

"Red alert", hands come up as all the elements we speak of come into play. Distancing, timing, reactionary response, positioning etc.

At this point, one of two things happen:

1. He stay outside or the "reach zone" and the situation de-esculates.

2. He continues to enter your zone and you engage pre-emptedly or otherwise.

I think the key here would be to get off a combination of 3 to 4 well conecting head shots before he knows what hit him ! Engage and commit to offensive intent.

Yes, I speak often of "avoidence" and verbal de-esculation and believe it to be the first line of defense. However, when those options are not available, you must be prepared intantaniously without hesitation to engage.

While many in this country are now so multi-cultural and from different countries, having dealt with many of these people, I find that their behaviour, manourism and verbal comunication skills often differ from our "learned" expectations.

While others, that are from here, simply lack communication skills that often lead to verbal confrontation and esculate to physical violence.

As suggested in the book "The Dark Side of Man" there is a biological/wiring within man that often resorts to violence "instictively" while as a society, we are taught and programed to "cage" that hostility and behave more civilized.

Do we really think that if laws and prisons did not exsist, as many people would avoid acts of violence as they do ? Are we all so civilized and non-violent as we would believe ? What about that "edge" that so many are on, dealing with life itself ?

"In any major urban area, street contacts with mentally or emotionally disturbed persons are practically unavoidable. According to the American Psychiatric Association, one of every three Americans will suffer some form of serious mental or emotional illness at some point in his life.

Gary S.

[Van Canna]

The ‘crowd bumping bully’ is a very common occurrence and one that will test you physically, mentally and _in the end_ emotionally as we have discussed. A more distressing problem may be the fact of the ubiquitous security cameras.

In ‘bumping’ cases_ as much as it sticks in your craw _ not retreating or backing down in front of many witnesses is a tactical mistake.

You must force yourself to apologize to the idiot even as you might want to kick him in the nuts.

Not very easy to do, I agree. This is where we should learn tactics, especially if you are armed with a blade/knife/oc spray etc.

The law wants you to retreat and not escalate even more so if you have weapons on you or some martial arts training which will be seen askew by the courts even as they might do you no good at all because you cannot use them to full effectiveness, as the fight will be one of ‘teaching someone a lesson’ as opposed to you using real violence in a ‘life or death_ serious’ situation.

So if you do get trapped into the ‘fight’ you will have no reason to leave him ‘non functional’ _

You may fight half heartedly with distance games and possibly provoke a lethal response from him you did not count on.

And many of the 'bumpers' are groups of punks, some of them gang members out to prove something.

[Van Canna]

gary6dan »

I do understand this. Generally, I do always say, "excuse me" or "I am sorry" assuming it was accidental at any cost.

The possession of a weapon brings up another issue. When is the use of "any" weapon justified ?

Will not the posession of a gun, knike, kubaton or any type of weapon be deemed as being carried for "intent" to use in a opportune situation ? Not saying that this is true. Only percieved to be ?

Gary S.

[Van Canna]

Look at ‘danger zone’ as an ‘interview’ of a punk[s] up to no good _ sizing you up and positioning himself to take you out before you even realize you are being cornered.

You are walking and a group of teens block your path refusing to let you pass. Now what are you going to do?

How do you get out of the danger zone? Don't depend on help from bystanders.

The group suddenly and brutally attacks, beating you to the ground and kicking and stomping, leaving you in critical condition.

You may have reached a point where taking violence to them is the only answer.
So what are you going to do?

[Van Canna]

Here is something from Gabe Suarez

Who doesn’t remember Val Kilmer’s (playing Doc Holliday) classic line in Tombstone as he faced an impending gun duel against the reputed gunman Johnny Ringo! Doc smiled and told Johnny Ringo, “Say when”.

One of the things I’ve noticed about persons facing a fight is that there is a great deal of uncertainty about when the line is actually crossed, when the red flag really has gone up. Its almost as if they are asking someone to follow them around and “say when”.

Well, there usually is someone saying “When”, and that is the adversary. We just have to be attentive enough to pick up the clue.

The main concern of many people is just exactly when are they “safe..legally-speaking” in blasting the beejabbers out of some miscreant.

This is difficult to answer in a book since the reader may be in a region with completely differing laws. Nevertheless, survival takes precedence over any laws, and that usually means that you must win.

[Van Canna]

Suarez

A trained person will be expected to know the difference between a minor threat and a life threatening assault.

A trained person may also be expected to resolve the matter with less force (greater accuracy and less violence) than would a neophyte (for whom panic may be excusable).

If you are a high-speed/low drag type, hold your standards high, because everyone else will do the same.

In some locations, a person must try to retreat before using deadly force if it is safe to do so. This is a tactically foolish law obviously penned by those who have no understanding about how these things are. If you run, they will often chase you.

Just remember your situation and keep that in mind. Retreat only to the point where it would place you in tactical jeopardy, then stand an fight like a monster!

The burden of proof relative to self defense is generally on the prosecution. That means that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self defense rather than requiring the defendant to prove he did act in self defense.

Unless there are other issues, their case is extremely difficult to make. They may try if you are an unpopular sort, but its all uphill for them.

[Van Canna]

One thing which must be present, is your full understanding of the Rules of Engagement under which you operate. In general, the Core Defensive Concept motivating most police use of force policies, as well as guidelines for civilians can be characterized by the acronym I.D.O.L. (Immediate Defense of Life).

When faced with a tactical problem requiring a likely deadly force decision, the operator (civilian, police, or whatever) must ask himself the question, “If I don’t stop this man - right now, will someone be killed or seriously injured by him”?

If the answer is “no”, or if there is any doubt, then immediate violence on your part is not the answer. The pure reason of this concept cannot be disputed. I hope I’ve answered the question of when “legally”. When “tactically” may be little different.

Suarez

[Van Canna]

I was called one day by an acquaintance from Europe. This man is one of those ultra-marathoners that eats tofu and grains and runs twenty miles a day while listening to Zen Rock.

He’d been to a course with me on the continent and knew that I frequented the desert regions from time to time.

He was intent on spending his vacation running across Death Valley!

After I discussed his sanity a few times, he assured me that it was not going to be a problem.

He was, however, concerned about the wildlife…more specifically snakes…rattlesnakes. They don’t have them in his part of the world and he wanted to know how he could tell one when he saw it. I told him, he’d know when he saw one.

The same goes for knowing that an aggressor means business. You’ll know.

First impressions are usually correct. Don't dismiss them.

There will the obvious clues (gun in hand, raised machete, etc.), and there will be some other not-so-obvious clues. Don’t try to rationalize them away.

Instead pay attention to them! They are saying,

“WHEN”.

Suarez

[Van Canna]

gary6dan »

You make a good point. Of course the "interview" or danger assessment can start evaluation at any distance. Not to imply that one has to be within 3 feet to be "read" or percieved as potential danger.

Only that, as one keeps some space between an opponent or potential attacker, you have a better chance of responding accourdingly when they do take motion to close the distance.

You can not engage until someone closes the distance enough to attack with contact. Unless, we are speaking of use of a firearm.

I think that the distance of awareness and mental prepareness is wherever one detects movement or noise (sound) that gains our attention as a "warning" or "alert" signal.

Not that we automatically go to "red alert" but acknowledge and become aware of something having potential.

Gary